Republicans are afraid to propose spending cuts!

[saveliberty]

All this deficit talk needs to stop for now. We are not ready to have this conversation. The deficit is not the biggest problem we need to be addressing right now. It's jobs! American's need jobs. Since the private sector won't start hiring until demand is up, then the public sector has no choice but to step in and spend this economy back to growing again. Once that occurs, demand will be up, the private sector will take over and then, only then, can the government turn their attention to deficit reduction.

We already had QE 1 to 3. The Mother of all bailouts. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Discretionary spending needs to grow, but Obama's plan is to remove some of that through taxation. Genius move, not.

 

[Billo_Really]

We already had QE 1 to 3. The Mother of all bailouts. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Discretionary spending needs to grow, but Obama's plan is to remove some of that through taxation. Genius move, not.

It worked. It didn't work as well as we would've liked, because it wasn't large enough.

We cannot deal with the deficit problem until American's are back to work.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I support rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure. This would put a lot of people back to work.

The worse thing we can do is give a large percentage of the unemployed a chance to get on SSD.

 

[Oldstyle]

Didja ask her about business? You know, stuff actual business people learn with time and success? I.E.,

- Live by the sale; die by the sale. Margin can be a poor trade-off for volume, since it diminsihes your perceived worth.

- Find your USP, and what you do better than others, and then focus on that. Getting too unfocused can confuse potential buyers and scare them away. So be wary of offering too much choice, which can create indecision.

- Pay on time, and get Net 30 terms with suppliers, or 5%/Net 10, if cash flow is not a problem. But net terms are sweet, since you can get paid before you incur costs.

-Involving employees in the decison-making process can not only unearth better ideas, it makes them more fulfilled as workers, which is benefit above and beyond mere monetary reward.

Need I go on, on what real business people learn, and not merely rhetorical nonsense any moron can list?

Hmmm?

I've got to be brutally honest with you, Koios. Nothing you have posted here would lead me to believe that you have ever run a business. As a matter of fact most of what you've posted here would make me think you've very seldom even WORKED.

You're coming across as just one more internet wannabe...

I'm sure you're right, and thus I have so much to learn from you. Let's say I sell a screwdriver for $12 that costs me $6.50. How do I book that in the GL?

Quickly now, without googling.

First you need to tell me if you have in fact been paid for it...or if it is money not yet received? If you received payment it would go under Cash..if it was an outstanding debt than it would go under Accounts Receivable. Was that supposed to trip me up? LOL

 

[saveliberty]

We already had QE 1 to 3. The Mother of all bailouts. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Discretionary spending needs to grow, but Obama's plan is to remove some of that through taxation. Genius move, not.

It worked. It didn't work as well as we would've liked, because it wasn't large enough.

We cannot deal with the deficit problem until American's are back to work.

It didn't work because it was fundementally flawed. The spending needs to be sustainable. This was a short term cash infusion which didn't create jobs. Jobs create long term sustainable spending. Government spending doesn't create jobs.

They don't create jobs in the private sector because it always creates a winner and a loser so it is a net sum zero game. They also require adminstration which diverts funds. They also rarely have measureable objectives that determine if the program should stay or be closed down. It just becomes a constant drain without the proper return on funds.

 

[zeke]

We already had QE 1 to 3. The Mother of all bailouts. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Discretionary spending needs to grow, but Obama's plan is to remove some of that through taxation. Genius move, not.

It worked. It didn't work as well as we would've liked, because it wasn't large enough.

We cannot deal with the deficit problem until American's are back to work.

It didn't work because it was fundementally flawed. The spending needs to be sustainable. This was a short term cash infusion which didn't create jobs. Jobs create long term sustainable spending. Government spending doesn't create jobs.They don't create jobs in the private sector because it always creates a winner and a loser so it is a net sum zero game. They also require adminstration which diverts funds. They also rarely have measureable objectives that determine if the program should stay or be closed down. It just becomes a constant drain without the proper return on funds.

Are you really REALLY sure about that?

When the Pentagon orders a new tank, doesn't someone with a job at General Dynamics need to build that tank? You know, like it is their JOB to build tanks the Pentagon (ie guv) orders. How about those ships, planes, weapons, ammo, etc.

Or do you think the Chinese are making all those items as well. If so, then our governmnet created Chinese jobs.

But jobs were still created, by the guvmint. Right?

 

[zeke]

Or did you mean to say the the government doesn't create consumer goods jobs. Like jobs for making stoves, dishwashers, clothes, radios etc.

Well yea, they don't do a lot of that. Except for when the guvmint needs to order stoves, dishwashers, clothes (China or elsewhere) radios etc.

 

[saveliberty]

It worked. It didn't work as well as we would've liked, because it wasn't large enough.

We cannot deal with the deficit problem until American's are back to work.

It didn't work because it was fundementally flawed. The spending needs to be sustainable. This was a short term cash infusion which didn't create jobs. Jobs create long term sustainable spending. Government spending doesn't create jobs.They don't create jobs in the private sector because it always creates a winner and a loser so it is a net sum zero game. They also require adminstration which diverts funds. They also rarely have measureable objectives that determine if the program should stay or be closed down. It just becomes a constant drain without the proper return on funds.

Are you really REALLY sure about that?

When the Pentagon orders a new tank, doesn't someone with a job at General Dynamics need to build that tank? You know, like it is their JOB to build tanks the Pentagon (ie guv) orders. How about those ships, planes, weapons, ammo, etc.

Or do you think the Chinese are making all those items as well. If so, then our governmnet created Chinese jobs.

But jobs were still created, by the guvmint. Right?

Yes, I'm sure. General Dynamics creates jobs not the government. The government creates orders.

 

[Billo_Really]

It didn't work because it was fundementally flawed. The spending needs to be sustainable. This was a short term cash infusion which didn't create jobs. Jobs create long term sustainable spending. Government spending doesn't create jobs.

They don't create jobs in the private sector because it always creates a winner and a loser so it is a net sum zero game. They also require adminstration which diverts funds. They also rarely have measureable objectives that determine if the program should stay or be closed down. It just becomes a constant drain without the proper return on funds.

That's a bunch of bullshit!

Do you know how many industries one infrastructure project affects? Just one project can generate over a 1000 jobs that have a ripple effect outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes, I'm sure. General Dynamics creates jobs not the government. The government creates orders.

They're government contracts paid out of the defense budget.

 

[Oldstyle]

It didn't work because it was fundementally flawed. The spending needs to be sustainable. This was a short term cash infusion which didn't create jobs. Jobs create long term sustainable spending. Government spending doesn't create jobs.

They don't create jobs in the private sector because it always creates a winner and a loser so it is a net sum zero game. They also require adminstration which diverts funds. They also rarely have measureable objectives that determine if the program should stay or be closed down. It just becomes a constant drain without the proper return on funds.

That's a bunch of bullshit!

Do you know how many industries one infrastructure project affects? Just one project can generate over a 1000 jobs that have a ripple effect outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project.

With all due respect, Loinboy? Were you asleep when we did the LAST infrastructure "thing"? The one that was supposed to create all those "shovel ready jobs"? Don't you remember how that all worked out?

Obama Jokes at Jobs Council: 'Shovel-Ready Was Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected' - Politics - Fox Nation

They say one definition of insanity is someone who keeps repeating the same action expecting a different outcome.

 

[bripat9643]

It didn't work because it was fundementally flawed. The spending needs to be sustainable. This was a short term cash infusion which didn't create jobs. Jobs create long term sustainable spending. Government spending doesn't create jobs.

They don't create jobs in the private sector because it always creates a winner and a loser so it is a net sum zero game. They also require adminstration which diverts funds. They also rarely have measureable objectives that determine if the program should stay or be closed down. It just becomes a constant drain without the proper return on funds.

That's a bunch of bullshit!

Do you know how many industries one infrastructure project affects? Just one project can generate over a 1000 jobs that have a ripple effect outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project.

You're forgetting the ripple effect on the other end of the transaction. When the money is withdrawn from the private economy through taxation or government borrowing it will destroy at least 1000 jobs. Those missing jobs have a ripple outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project. Furthermore, the government make-work jobs generally don't contribute to the material well being of consumers, whereas the jobs destroyed were contribute to the material well being of consumers.

 

[Jarhead]

Or did you mean to say the the government doesn't create consumer goods jobs. Like jobs for making stoves, dishwashers, clothes, radios etc.

Well yea, they don't do a lot of that. Except for when the guvmint needs to order stoves, dishwashers, clothes (China or elsewhere) radios etc.

if you had an income of 75K and your expenses per year were 125K, would you borrow money to make your bathroom nicer?

Spending money on infrastructure projects DOES create jobs...but they are temporary jobs for when the project is over, the orders for the products used in the project will end....

And when one who is unemployed for 2 years takes a job that he/she knows has "an end", he or she will not be spending anything above his or her needs...which he or she was able to do with unemployment, food stamps and other entitlements (which I support for those genuinely down on their luck)..

And what does that do? Nothing as it pertains to economic growth for he is not buying anything more than he already had been buying, but in the meantime we are borrowing money to spruce up our bnathrooms when we are seriously in debt.

 

[Billo_Really]

You're forgetting the ripple effect on the other end of the transaction. When the money is withdrawn from the private economy through taxation or government borrowing it will destroy at least 1000 jobs. Those missing jobs have a ripple outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project. Furthermore, the government make-work jobs generally don't contribute to the material well being of consumers, whereas the jobs destroyed were contribute to the material well being of consumers.

Your so full of shit! Taxes don't destroy jobs, lack of demand does.

And any spending that puts American's back to work, contibutes to consumers.

 

[Jarhead]

You're forgetting the ripple effect on the other end of the transaction. When the money is withdrawn from the private economy through taxation or government borrowing it will destroy at least 1000 jobs. Those missing jobs have a ripple outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project. Furthermore, the government make-work jobs generally don't contribute to the material well being of consumers, whereas the jobs destroyed were contribute to the material well being of consumers.

Your so full of shit! Taxes don't destroy jobs, lack of demand does.

The bottom line to a business owner is what ultimately affects jobs. Even if the demand is there, if the employer cant afford to hire, he wont.

And any spending that puts American's back to work, contibutes to consumers.

Unless it is a temporary job...which is what infrastructure jobs are. If it is temporary, the empoloyee will be less likely to spenmd more than he was with his entitlements...and more apt to hold onto as much of it as he can for when the job ends.

Spend more time applying logic and less time regurgitating talking points.

Talking points are designed to fool those that wont think for themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

You're forgetting the ripple effect on the other end of the transaction. When the money is withdrawn from the private economy through taxation or government borrowing it will destroy at least 1000 jobs. Those missing jobs have a ripple outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project. Furthermore, the government make-work jobs generally don't contribute to the material well being of consumers, whereas the jobs destroyed were contribute to the material well being of consumers.

Your so full of shit! Taxes don't destroy jobs, lack of demand does.

ROLF! Liberal delusions are so charming. If taxes don't destroy jobs, then why are all the Democrats in Washington clucking like a bunch of chickens about going over the fiscal cliff? Yeah, consumers are going to spend just as much on consumption after a $5000 tax increase as the did before. It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that taxes don't destroy jobs.

And any spending that puts American's back to work, contibutes to consumers.

The only consumers it "contributes to" are the ones who get checks from the government. Everyone else gets fucked up the ass.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

OMG, this is getting funnier by the minute.

According to the latest accounts, Obama is pushing very hard on taxing the rich -- not only expiration of Bush tax cuts, but also rising the dividend and estate taxes. In exchange, Dems are proposing modest spending cuts, leaving it to Republicans to offer what else they see fit to axe.

Now that is where it gets comical -- Republicans refuse to detail any additional spending cuts! They say they are desperately needed, huge cuts too. But they are afraid -- and for a good reason too -- that if they themselves would put any specific proposals regarding the entitlement programs on the table, the voters would punish them.

So Republicnas are practically begging the Dems to do the honor and commit a political suicide.

Now tell me -- aren't they cute? Saying no to them is like taking a candy from a little girl -- breaks one's heart! I see John Boehner crying again.

The left's "Holy Grail" is entitlements. If you look at the Federal Budget, entitlements, NOT defense spending, takes up the vast majority of our Federal budget and proposed debt. To simply raise taxes in order to spend more, according to Obama's proposal, will not solve our nations debt. Raising taxes on the wealthy is the equivilent to using bubble gum to stop growing cracks building in the dam of evident fiancial disaster.... it won't work. To ignore entitlement spending is to bring our country on on the same pathway as Greece, an outcome our nation cannot afford.

Unfortunately, I favor going off the fiscal cliff if serious entitlement reform isn't also addressed and resolved before it reaches the President's desk. The question is, are Democrats really serious at all about solving our nations debt and spending problem?

 

[saveliberty]

I think both sides want to go over the cliff. Obama gets 50 0f his 70B. in taxes from the rich AND he gets to try and blame the Republicans. Republicans get bigger spending cuts than they can probably get from the Democrats AND get to blame the Democrats. They just have to make it look like they tried.

 

[Euroconservativ]

Yes, I'm sure. General Dynamics creates jobs not the government. The government creates orders.

They're government contracts paid out of the defense budget.

General Dynamics owns Gulfstream, the world's fourth manufacturer of civil airplanes. An amazing company from Georgia.

The defense budget indirectly helps civilian high-tech.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're forgetting the ripple effect on the other end of the transaction. When the money is withdrawn from the private economy through taxation or government borrowing it will destroy at least 1000 jobs. Those missing jobs have a ripple outward towards other industries that provide products and services for that project. Furthermore, the government make-work jobs generally don't contribute to the material well being of consumers, whereas the jobs destroyed were contribute to the material well being of consumers.

Your so full of shit! Taxes don't destroy jobs, lack of demand does.

And any spending that puts American's back to work, contibutes to consumers.

That's such an ignorant statement. Taxes do indeed destroy jobs! Anytime you lower the expectation of profit you lower the incentive to risk capital. If you raise taxes you're taking a slice of profit and giving it to government. THAT is not an incentive to build business...that's an incentive to safeguard capital by putting it into some type of tax shelter.

There is a reason why we're experiencing the slowest recovery from a recession in decades under this Administration and it's because you progressives don't understand basic economic principles.